[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] define _BSD_SOURCE for bktr.c

[Måns Rullgård]

Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 06:58:55PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:02:55PM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:45:10PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 04:53:50PM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>> >> > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:32:03AM -0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> >> > > > 
>> >> > > > Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 02:50:48AM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>> >> > > > >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 02:10:03PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> >> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > >> > The patch has 17 different hunks, hunks 5-7, 13, 14 are
>> >> > > > >> > applied, hunk 8 has been explained, the rest is
>> >> > > > >> > mysterious.
>> >> > > > >>
>> >> > > > >> (2) line 934 - use the hardware arch instead of machine
>> >> > > > >> arch.  this was sent to me from another developer.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Why don't you just pass --arch=WHATEVER to configure?
>> >> > > > 
>> >> > > > If OpenBSD has a different mechanism for detecting the
>> >> > > > architecture, I have nothing against supporting this in a
>> >> > > > clean way.  I am, however, slightly confused by the
>> >> > > > hardware vs. machine distinction?  I thought those words
>> >> > > > were more or less synonymous.
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > there are, in OpenBSD, a few differences.  I don't use any of those
>> >> > > machines, but I believe, e.g. zaurus vs arm is an example, as
>> >> > > well as macppc vs powerppc.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Could you point us at some examples or documentation?
>> >> 
>> >> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=arch
>> >> http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=uname
>> >
>> > Executive summary: 'uname' outputs the host architecture, 'arch'
>> > outputs the target architecture.
>> 
>> What you just said makes no sense.  Those commands always report
>> characteristics of the machine on which they run; cross-compiling is
>> irrelevant here.
>> 
>> I think the answer is that the BSD uname reports the system type
>> rather than the CPU architecture, e.g. pc instead of x86.  The
>> standard is sufficiently vague ("the name of the hardware type") that
>> an implementation can get away with this, annoying though it may be.
>> 
>> GNU coreutils includes an "arch" command documented as being
>> equivalent to "uname -m".
>
> FWIW, on my Debian system, 'arch' is part of the util-linux package.
> However, for whatever reason, it's only present on the Debian stable
> box, the Debian testing box no longer has it...

What does it report, this "arch" of yours?

-- 
M?ns Rullg?rd
mans at mansr.com